Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-10-19 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular� � Meeting PALO ALTO CITYCOLINCILMEETIIiiA Pn' AirDCA#tIVE49AKZSLI-FREQUENCY90,IONFMDIAL ITEM Oral Communications Approval of. Minutes of September 14 and 21, 1987 Consent Calendar 1. Contract with Munkdale Brothers, Inc., for Site Improvements at Embarcadero and Geng Dekm,nl� 2. Supplemental Agreement with Pacific Gas & Electric for Gas Metering Station No. 4 3. Contract with T & R Communications, Inc,, for Removal of Old Telephone Cable and Wire from City Facilities 4. Resolution Adopting ,a Records Retention Schedule for the Office of the City Clerk 5 Contract with Utilitech, Inc., for Sealing -Underground Electric Vaults f. Ordinance Amending Chapter 6.28 of the -Palo Alto .Municipal Code bb Strengthen and Clarify Procedures Concerning Dangerous Animals 3. Resolution Establishing an International Visitors Committee of Neighbors Abroad 8. Policy and Procedures Committee re Midtown Neighborhood Traffic Study 9. Revisions to Residential Energy Services Programs Adjournment to a Closed Session at 9:40 p. Final Adjournment at:10141 p•m._. PAGE 58-353 58-353 58-353 58-353 58-353 58-354 58-354 58-354 58-354 58-354 58-355 58-368 58.368 58.369 Regular Meeting Monday, October 19, 1987. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:31 p.m. PR :SENT: Bechtel (arrived at .7:32 p.m.) , Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:50 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Mayor Woolley announced at some point during or atter the meeting there would be'a Closed Session re Century Federal, Inc., vs. City of Palo Alto_, 'et al pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Nor; r�r OFMINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14 and 21, 1987 MOTION: Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded 'by Levy, approval of the Minutes of September 14, 1987, as submitted. MOTION P/WSED by a vote of 7-0-1, Cobb 'abstaining,' Patitucci Absent. MOTION: Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Minutes of September. 21, 1987, as submitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Renzel asked tb be recorded as abstaining on Item 1,. Contract With Munkdale Brothers, Inc., for Site Improvements at Embarcadero and Geng Roads. MOTION: Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Consent Calendar. 1. CONTRACT WITH MUNXDALE BROTHERS( INC., FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT EMSARCADERO AND ,GENE ROADS (Ct k 492:'7 ). (300 ) 2. SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 2 WITH PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC P6R, GAS NETERINd S 'ALtON NO. 4 (CMR: 4I5: 7 ) CONSENT CALENDAR (Cont'd) 3. CONTRACT WITH T & R COMMUNICA'I'IONS, INC., FOR REMOVAL OF OLD TELEPHONE CABLE AND WIRE FROM CITY FACILITIES (CMR:479:7) (1142) 4. RESOLUTION 6648 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY, OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK" (129-02) 5. CONTRACT WITH UTILI.TECH, INC. , FOR SEALING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC VAULTS (CMR:494 7) (1130) 6. ORDINANCE 3773 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 6.28 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO STRENGTHEN AND CLARIFY PROCEDURES CONCERNING DANGEROUS ANIMALS" (1st Reading 10/05/87, PASSED 9-0) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel "abstaining' on Item 1, Patitucci absent. 7. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN INTERNATIONAL VISITORS COMMITTEE OF NEIGHBORS ABROAD (CMR:488:7) (1540-04/ 701-04) Mayor Woolley read the Resolution which established an International Visitors Committee to draft guidelines for visitor activities (mindful of established -protocol gov- erning official visits of foreign dignitaries),. to maintain and utilize computerized information to bring about compat- ible matching of hosts and visitors, and to disseminate information to promote international awareness and to encourage active community support. MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Sutorius, approval of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 6649 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ESTABLISHING AN INTERNATIONAL VISITORS COMMITTEE OF NEIGHBORS ABROAD Marge Collins, 3950 Duncan Place, the immediate past President of Neighbors Abroad, co-chaired the International Visitors Committee with •Sally Kiester. Neighbors Abroad was excited about the concept and would welcome support and involvement from the citizens of Palo Alto and from the City Council 58-354 10/19/87 MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci absent. 8. POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE RE MIDI'O QN NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFICSTUDY (CMR:493:7) (1.041-09/701-03/701-04) Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee Chairman Renzel said there was extensive public input at the P&P Committee meeting and an inch -thick stack of correspondence which most Council Members also saw and read. MOTION: Council Member Renzel for the Policy and Procedures Committee moved re the Midtown Neighborhood Traffic Study that the City Council: 1) Defer the full consideration and final dispensation of the widening of the east side of the south leg of Middlefield Road at Oregon Expressway to the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study Environmental Impact Report (EIR); 2) Encourage Santa Clara County to proceed expeditiously with the Oregon Expressway traffic signal coordination project; 3) Initiate a one-year road bump demonstration project on Cowper Street between Oregon Expressway and Matadero Creek, and Colorado Avenue between Cowper Street and Middlefield Road; 4) Find that the above actions will not have a significant effect on the environment au substantiated in the environmental assessment; 5) Defer action on the existing stop sign on eastbound Colorado Avenue at Byron pending determination by staff that the road bumps on Colorado Avenue might effectively deter the traffic by their strategic placement; and 6) Request staff to give a higher priority to dealing with the commercial driveways along Middlefield. AMENDMENT: Council I Member Renzel moved, seconded by y Sutorius, to revise. recommendation #3 to read, 'Initiate a one-year road bump demonstration project on Cowper Street between Oregon Expressway and Matadero Creek, and on Colorado and Marion Avenues between Cowper Street and Middlefield Road.' Council Member Bechtel said staff's original recommendation was for road bumps on Cowper Street only, andthe Policy and 58-35 5 10/19/87 Procedures (P&P) Committee made a change. She asked whether staff felt strongly that it was preferable to start simply with Cowper. Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel referenced page 22 of the staff report (CMR:400:7). The highest traffic speed and volume was on Cowper Street, so staff believed it was appro- priate to focus on that street first. Staff recognized road bumps had not been tried there before, they were contro- versial, and some departments in the City opposed road bumps, i.e., the Fire Department, Public Works Department, and the Loss Control Manager. Combining those reasons with the split opinion as to whether the residents would like road bumps on Marion Avenue, staff felt it was prudent to start :such a program on one street and, at the end of the trial, to evaluate and decide whether it was appropriate for the other two streets. Cowper was chosen because of the Marion problem diversion on Colorado. Council Member Bechtel said staff's original estimates for the one-year project were $18,000, including $7,200 for installation and $3,600 for removal, for Cowper Street alone, and she asked about the additional costs for adding Cowper and Marion. Mr. Stoffel said the current staff report (CMR:493:7) for Colorado and Cowper together had a figure of $29,000. A cost for all three streets would be $37,000; $8,000 more. Council Member Cobb referenced staff's opinion that installing road bumps on Colorado but not on Marion would likely cause traffic diversion to Marion, and he asked if installing road bumps on just Cowper would also cause a diversion to Marion. Mr. Stoffel said not significantly. There could.be some diversion, but there. was only one more road bump after passing Marion on the Cowper/Colorado route if the road bumps Were only installed on Cowper,- and staff believed most people would continue using Cowper and Colorado. He opined the;diversion would be in the 5 to 10 percent area, if any. Council Member Cobb asked where the road bumps would be installed on Marion.. Mr. Stoffel clarified the Environmental Assessment attached to the totaft report (CMR:493:7) showed the approximate posi- tions. 58-356 10/19/87 Charles Pratt, 614 Marion Avenue, said a petition circulated on October 10, 1987, was:a clear attempt to obfuscate the issue and included people who did not live on Marion. The Hoover Park Neighborhood Association (HPNA) did not repre- sent him nor many of his neighbors. The Fire, Police, and Public Works Departments were against the road bumps program because of response time and having to lift the shoes on the street sweepers which would leave debris. Corner. houses got noise from two streets, and they could not create quiet to take care of that problem. He had counted the cars and did not see a problem. He opined the vast majority of people who lived on Marion did not want road bumps. Council Member Levy asked if Mr. Pratt was approached and asked to sign the petition. Mr. Pratt said no. .parker Robinson, 684 Marion Avenue, had not been bothered by traffic on Marion in 32 years but would be bothered by road bumps. Commuters had the choice of taking another street, but he did not. Mayor Woolley asked Mr. Robinson's reaction to the most recently circulated petition asking if people wanted the whole neighborhood treatd in the same way. Mr. Robinson said the petition was probably circulated by the HPNA, and they knew he was not interested in their posi- tion. He was not aware of the petition and had not been asked to sign it. Mayor Woolley asked whether he would be concerned that the diversion of cars to Marion would substantially increase traffic if road bumps were installed on Colorado and Cowper. Mr. Robinson said the increase in traffic was pure supposition and he would like to take that chance. Mary S. Heyl, 2511 Webster Street, loved what Mr. Robinson said but felt he spent all his time inside andwas not :out. hoping. the children did not get run over. She preferred to have the road bumps on Marion and even on Webster if a life could be saved. Tatiana Van Houten, 600, Marion Avenue, said the philosophy of the DKS consultants, City staff, and the HPNA was not to lessen traffic problems on one street at the expense of another. The City should adopt a unified test plan. R. W. Van Houten, 600 Marion Avenue, said the existing vehicle count was already pushing the upper limit, and the speeds presented a significant safety problem. with road bumps of Colorado and Cowper, traffic on Marion and Webster increased by 23 percent. Regarding the petition, Webster and Marion merged and through traffic was shared equally by both streets. Out of a total of 76 houses in the survey area, 54 supported a unified test plan. They would like the cOsswalks on Middlefield improved. Robert C. Perry, 2499 Cowper Street, favored including all three primary streets to evaluate the usefulness of the road bumps. He was convinced installing low-cost bulbouts of potted plants at the intersection of Cowper and Marion would eliminate an extremely dangerous and noisy problem. Denis Cogswell, 2501 Cowper Street, seconded Mr. Per; -'s comments. He urged the Council to reserve the option of adding the road bumps to Marion later. Stanley Youngblood, 617 Colorado Avenue, representing the HFNA, asked the Council to implement measures to reduce the volume and speed of cut -through traffic in the neighborhood, a ltd to provide safer access to the Midtown residents who used the Midtown commercial shopping area. ' 7 a minimum, the UPNA wanted a road burp program tried on the three pri- mary streets of the test, area. Out of 92 percent of the households in the neighborhood, 78 percent approved the road bumps on all three roads, and 100 percent believed more measures should be taken to make the crosswalks on Middlefield Road safe. Louis Bachmann, 570 Marion Avenue, said Middlefield Road and the intersection of Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway were the key elements in providing resolutions to neighbor- hood traffic impacts. It was incongruous to defer action on the widening of Middlefield Road and then implement a road bump plan on Cowper Street and Colorado Avenue because both were collector streets. On behalf of the Marion Avenue home owners, he opposed the placement of bumps on their street. The measure was punitive And Would inflict a greater hard- ship on the local home owneri than on the occasional motorist-, and the signs would deface their streets. He requested the Council withhold any action on. the project that evening. Council Member Cobb asked what Mr. Bachmann perceived as the specific objections to road.bumps on Marion Avenue. 58--358 10/19/87 Mr. Bachmann said the residents of Marion Avenue did not see a traffic problem, and most of them were retired and out every day. One of the road bumps was scheduled in front of his home, and he did not want to`look out and see a sign instead of a tree. The 50 -foot restriction on parking would deny.-' access to his property. He noted San Francisco abandoned the practice of placing road bumps after 10 years because of the noise and exhaust pollution. Larry Phelan, 512 Colorado Avenue, supported road bumps. He dealt with the speed and traffic volume daily and frequently had difficulty getting in and out of his driveway. He was `concerned about the safety of children on the street. Joanne Matthew, 575 Marion Avenue, said the recent petition confirmed the Marion Avenue residents opposed road bumps on their street. HPNA1did not represent the Marion majority. They _reconsidered their support of the P&P Committee recom- mendations voiced in their recent letter to the Council (on file in the City Clerk's office) and supported road bump testing on Cowper Street only along with _the two additional stop signs at Cowper at Marion. Mary Beth Barbanel, 2521 Webster Street, believed crossing the street at Middlefield Road was a life hazard to her children. She supported road bumps on Marion. Council Member Renzel asked Ms. .Barbanel's son to describe his experiences crossing the street. Ms. Barbanel's nine-year old son said it was hard to go to the Co-op to get a loaf of bread because the cars would not stop for him. Drew Beck, 521 Marion Avenue, believed the objective was to push the traffic ou.t to Oregon Expressway or Middlefield Road and road bumps on Colorado and Cowper would not do that. The argument that City departmen.tt were against road bumps on Manion .should be carried to all three streets. All three streets should be treated equally, and he preferred the road bumps. Mrs. Wallbrink, 2643 Cowper Street, a member of the HPNA, said. City staff largely ignored the recommendations of the traffic consultant's study. Anything less than having road bumps on all three streets would destroy the integrity of the plan and make it difficult to assess the results. The two intersections on Cowper Street had cars cutting corners At high rates of speed, and she believed a test of bulbouts was essential. 58-359 10/19/87 John Wallbrink, 2643 Cowper Street, wanted a comprehensive plan that considered the entire neighborhood and its safety. Road bumps would slow people down, make the area safer, and would cut down on traffic. When he turned into his drive- way, cars tried to pass on the right and sometimes went over the sidewalk. He supported the recommendation of the DKS consultant study for road bumps on all three streets, appro- priate sidewalks in the Midtown shopping area, and the main- tenance of a stop sign on Byron Street on Colorado. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said there was a difference between a speed "bump" and a speed "hump," -and the consultant was hired to find a solution to the traffic problem --not to find a convenient place to test "humps." Normally money would already be in the Capital Improvement Program and a budget amendment would not be needed to imple- ment the study. He was concerned about liability based upon the City's failure to alleviate a dangerous condition where speeders were using the streets in a reasonably foreseeable manner. The stop sign on Colorado at Byron had been effec- tive and should not be, removed. The change of traffic signal at Colorado and Middlefield should not be a reason for eliminating the stop sign, and the decision should be.a policy decision el the Council., They needed two road bumps and a stop .sign on that stretch- of Colorado to effectively reduce the speed. The fourth report from the consultant was missing from the DKS study package, and there was nothing to indicate what speed humps looked like or the size. He suggested placing the speed humps on Marion in front of the houses of people willing to have them, and including contin- gency funds for placing a hump on Webster if needed as a result of traffic diversion. He opposed speeding up the process in the County on the synchronization of Oregon Expressway.' The demonstration proposal should have a target of 25 miles per hour. John Wanless, 2682 Cowper Street, said the HPNA adopted a cooperative stance with the City and staff in order to. achieve a neighborhood betterment solution in the area of traffic control. The HPNA was disappointed at the final City staff recommendations because none of their desires were met. The compromise solution of wide road bumps had been proposed by staff as an alternative to barriers on Park Boulevard p therefore, it was difficult to see how City departments would object to road bumps in Midtown. Bulbouts seemed:to be worth a try. Diana Diamond, 25.12 Cowper Street, was appalled at the speed on Cowper and Marion, and supported road bumps on all three streets. Backing out o€ _ her driveway was like driving on the autobahn. 58-360 10/19/87 Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, reiterated Ms. Diamond's comments about the trouble getting in and out of driveways. A neighborhood solution would be road bumps on all three streets; bulbouts at Colorado/Cowper and Marion/ Cowper, .and pedestrian -activated lights at Middlefield and the two crosswalks. Al Russell, 605 Colorado Avenue, generally supported the recommendations of the H?NA, especially in terms of road bumps. Menlo Park. found little objection from the Police and Fire Departments to the road bumps on Oak Avenue. His biggest concern was safety, especially for children riding bicycles to school. The crosswalks on Middlefield were dangerous. Marlin Korfhage, 590 Marion Avenue, said they did not have excessive traffic at Marion and Webster, and a lot of the speeding cars were local residents. The majority of Marion residents opposed road bumps, and the issues should be addressed as separate streets. He raised his children on the street and had no problem. Council Member Bechtel was not prepared to support the amendment to include Marion Avenue for road bumps and preferred to have the test on Cowper only at the present time. Later on it might be reasonable to add Marion and/or Colorado. Cowper and Colorado were the ones with the greatest impact. She was concerned about the traffic impacts on Marion with the road bumps on Colorado. With so much resistance to road bumps from the Marion residents, she did not believe Marion should'be added without first seeing the impacts on the neighbhrhood. It would be much easier to add later on than to spend the money to include bumps_ on Marion and then subsequently remove them. Council Member Cobb asked if the correct characterization was an undulation as opposed to a bumpy ridge. Mr. Stoftel said that was correct. --Staff had chosen the name "road bump" to talk about the longs low one. Council Member Cobb asked what street markings went with the road bumps and wherethe signs would be located. Mr. Stoffel said the City would do as much as Menlo Park had done. There would definitely be a sign at each end of the streetpreceding the series of road bumps, then there would be a sign at each bump in each direction. The first sign`, would signify there were bumps ahead, and the advisory sign at the bump would say "15 miles per hour.* There could be a legend on the pavement. 58-L361 10/19/87 Council Member Cobb asked if the signs were more obtrusive than other City signs. Mr. Stoffel said the signs were the standard yellow and black warning signs, and the ones at the start of the section would probably be 30 inches by 30 inches. Normally on residential streets one saw a 24 inch by 24 inch yellow and black sign. He believed interior signs were needed, especially for a new program, and it was the standard in most cities. Menlo Park placed flags on their first sign for the first week or two because of the special nature. - Council Member Fletcher said the intent of road bumps was to control speed, and they were not noticeably uncomfortable if a car went over them at the expected speed. She referenced the bumps at the Stanford Shopping Center which one barely noticed because of going through the shopping center at a slow speed. San Francisco decided to eliminate speed bumps, i.e., the short, tall ones, which were not legal to -use in streets because they caused problems, What was installed and quickly taken out on Louis Road some years ago way rumble strips, which made a noise. The Marion residents said there was no problem on Marion, but there would be a problem on Marion if the bumps were installed on Colorado because the cars would avoid Colorado, look for an alternate route, and --would choose Marion. She supported road bumps on all three streets. The residents on Colorado seemed uni- formly in favor of them. She did not consider the program as experimental. Road bumps had been installed in many places in the country as well as abroad, and were invariably popular. On Oak Avenue in Menlo Park the residents praised road bumps. and Menlo Park was putting in three more. The Council was likely to see further requests for road bumps on other streets once people found out how effective they could be in discouraging and slowing through traffic. She sup- ported the amendment. Vice Mayor Sutorius said he made the motion at the P&P Committee meeting to extend the staff recommendation to include Colorado Tong with Cowp►r. His rationale at the P&P Committee meeting was he was certain the road bumps were necessary an Colorado but he could not envision a great deal of traffic on Marion because it was not part of his personal habit tv traverse that street. The next morning he learned it was e' part of his wif s personal traffic pattern. He had since tried to be more observant and was convinced the road bumps were. necessary on all three streets. supported the amendment: 58-362 10/19/87 Council Member Renzel echoed Vice Mayor Sutoiius's comments. Unless road bumps were included on all three streets, she believed the success of thebumps on the other streets would be threatened because of their effect on Marion Avenue, and there would be no valid conclusions by only doing it on two out of the three streets. Safety vehicles had a policy of traveling on the main collector streets except when they needed to go directly into a neighborhood for service. In terms of an emergency response on Marion or Cowper, response times would only be affected by seconds, which she did not believe was a serious impediment. Council Member Klein associated himself with those who spoke in favor of the positive reasons strong negatives. terrific eyesore properties in the three -street approach. There were many for the three -street approach, and no He did not believe road bumps were a nor would they decrease the value of area, and the same with regard to signs. Council Member Patitucci asked how many other streets would qualify for the same kind of treatment, assuming the three -street plan was successful. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the potential had not been analyzed in any detail. The perception of how much traffic constituted a.probiem varied from neighborhood to neighborhood and street to street throughout Palo Alto. Without direction from Council to reopen various neighborhood studies, staff would not pursue further use of road bumps, certainly until the end of the test and even after that, unless there was a clear indica- tion of an area perceiving itself as having a problem. Council Member Patitucci believed anybody on a cut -through street would want the same thing if the program was success- ful. Council was making, a major Public Works, CIP future commitment, because they wanted to be fair to all residents of the community with similar problems. If the project dis- couraged traffic,. he_asked if it would be an alternative to the present barriers, allowing people to traverse those area s -but clearly -only for local needs. Council should con- sider the _matter long-term. :There was a need to do something but going ahead with the experiment had implica- tions he was not prepared to support at present. He pre- ferred to see the impact of some of the other proposed mea- sOres before starting on a program that would commit they City to a major future expenditure. Conversely, if _they went ahead, he believed the threestreet program was appropriate. He did not _support the program, and hoped the otion could be divided. Council Member Levy said the fundamental purpose was to make each street safer, quieter, and more livable for the resi- dents. There was no question that the residents of Cowper and Colorado desired the road bumps, and no question that the majority of residents on Marion did not. The question was whether Council, as government officials by fiat, should inflict the road bumps on the residents of Marion,, because without them there would be more traffic and speed on Marion. The residents who lived on Marion were aware of that argument and still concluded they did not want the- road bumps. Council always had the right: to return and put road bumps on Marion if needed, and could do so after the test if the residents believed they had made a critical mistake. Council Member Renzel's comment that there would not be a valid test by excluding Marion. -was wrong because they knew the likely outcome of a two -street bump test was that more traffic would be tunneled onto Marion. If the residents said their livability on the street would be less by having the bumps, he did not believe it was proper for the Council to say the residents were wrong and install the bumps. Mayor Woolley had long been a supporter of diverting through traffic from residential streets. They were not simply talking about slowing traffic down in general or making streets quieter, but trying to stop the short cutting from one arterial to another via a residential street, primarily over a very short distance. She opined they should either consider one street or three, not two. Since, as pointed out by Council Member Fletcher, the residents on Colorado were overwhelming in support of the plan, she believed road bumps should be installed on all three streets. Since there was strong opposition from three households adjacent to the first road bump on Marion, she asked if the plan would func- tion properly if the bump was moved much closer to Cowper where there were several residents in favor of the road bump, or to some point on Webster. Mr. Stoffe1 said it did not seem wise to split the road bumps between Marion ,arid Webster because .drivers might find a route with only tree bump, and there should be at least two bumps to give speed control over a certain distance. Staff had the.latitude to Move the road bumps 100 feet in either direction to allow for such things as sewers, etc., and it was. possible to move them slightly to have them in front of someone's home that was more in favor. He deferred response on -whether that could actually be done, and also on whether one bump could be installed on Webster and one on Marion. Mayor Woolley believed she was speaking to more than 50 to 100 feet of movement. 58-364 10/19/87 Council Member Renzel said Council Member Patitucci might not recall that most of the neighborhood traffic studies took years and years, and the subject study had been in the works for eight years. She did not foresee a barrage of requests for road bumps all over town because that would necessitate studies of whole areas with a common traffic problem over a long period of time. She hoped Council Member Patitucci would go with his feeling that three streets were better than two and support the amendment. Vice Mayor Sutorius -referenced the placement of -the road bumps ,and the minimum of two on Marion, and said if road bumps were placed on Cowper and Colorado and not on Marion, not only would Marion suffer a traffic increase in the blocks on which they focused that evening but there would be -a raceway from Waverley to Middlefield, He believed the potential of- traffic increase on Marion was even greater than forecast. Portions of the 400 block of Marion would be quite negatively affected as well as residents on Waverley. The amendment was deserving of the Council's favorable vote. Council Member Fletcher said the residents of Webster seemed to overwhelmingly favor installing the bumps on Marion, and realized they would get a lot of cut -through traffic if the bumps did not go in. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Bechtel, Levy voting 'no." AMENDMENT: Council Member .Renzel moved, seconaeu by Woolley, to add ty as follows: 7. Retain two • existing MiddAefield Road pedestrian cross- walks at Bryson and Webster and install improved signing and striping. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Council Member Cobb asked about quantitative measures for determining whether the program was successful. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said specific success criteria was not proposed. The program was experi- mental and the impacts were unknown. Staffis position was to see what the consequences were in six monthsor a year and report to the Council at .that point. Much of the suc- cess depended on how the citizens. .felt regarding what the bumps looked like and how effective they were.. 58-365 10/19/87 Council Member Patitucci asked to have number 3 of the motion separated for purposes of voting. Mr. Schreiber clarified the Committee recommendation was to defer action on the existing stop sign on eastbound Colorado at Byron pending determination as to whether the road bumps would effectively slow traffic. The recommendation also referred to placement of the road bumps. Staff recommended that Council adopt a resolution -authorizing removal of the stop sign because they believed the stop sign on Colorado and Byron would interfere with calculating the effectiveness of the road bump location because it would be in such close proximity. Mayor Woolley said if the stop signs were retained, the bumps would go in different places than if they were removed and the test data would be less valid and meaningful because it Hwould be unknown whether the stop signs or road bumps were slowing the traffic. AMENDMENT: Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Patitucci, to revise item 5, to read, "remove the existing stop sign on eastbound Colorado Avenue at Byron Street...° Council Member Fletcher clarified speeding occurred on Colorado in the westbound and eastbound directions. She believed the argument for eliminating the stop sign and in effect substituting the road bump ,was that the stop sign only covered one direction. She believed it would be a better test of the road bumps if they were placed so as to affect traffic in both directions. She supported the amend- ment with the proviso of reinstalling the stop sign if any problems arose. Council Member Renzel believed the Committee was reluctant 11-,o recommend removal of the ,stop sign outright because with the discussion of improving the signal. at Colorado and Middlefield, it was felt there would be a long stretch where people would be judging the light and picking up speed as they crossed Byron Street. Mayor Woolley said if the signal was not tripped until a car was close enough, drivers would be facing a red light and she did not see why they would be picking up speed AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Renzel, Sutorius voting sno. * Mr.. Schreiber said the staffrecommendation included a bud- get amendment ordinance for $35,000. Given the amendment 58-366 10/19/87 for two road bumps on Marion, the cost would need to be increased. FIRST PART OF AMENDED MOTION INCLUDING 1, 2 and 4-7 PASSED unanimously. SECOND PART OF AMENDED MOTION, NO. 3, REGARDING ROAD BUMPS PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Patitucci voting "no." MOTION: Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel, approval of the resolution amending the Citywide Stop Intersection System Nap and approval of the budget amendment ordinance with the amount revised to $42,000. RESOLUTION: 6650 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE CITYWIDE STOP INTERSECTION SYSTEM MAP" ORDINANCE 3374 AS AMENDED entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 87-28, UUDTOWN TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS' Vice Mayor Sutorius said:the staff recommendation included a budget amendment of $29,000° -with a contingency of $5,000, which covered both Colorado and Cowper. Council added two road bumps at $1,700 each. Mr. Stoffel referred to page 2 of Attachment 1 to the staff report (CMR:493:7) and said eight bumps rather than si,; bumps would be installed for a total of $13,600 rather than $10,200; preparation of engineering and construction drawings would be increased to $2,000 from $1,500; traffic counts would be decreased from $5,300 to $4,000 because the extra monitoring would not be necessary on Marion; the reserve for removal and reinstallation would be increased to two bumps for a total of $5,000 rather than $2,500; and the reserve for removal of 8 bumps rather than 6 bumps would be increased to $6,000 from $4,500; and the contingency amount would be increased to $6,400, which was approximately 20 percent. The grand total was $37,000. Vice Mayor Sutorius said when he first became a Council Member, it seemed they dealt generally with 10 percent con- tingencies,' and over the years contingencies increased to 15 percent. He asked about the 20 percent contingency.. Mr. Stoffel said he often used the 20 percent figure. the case of Evergreen Park, he found it to be low. 58-367 10/19/87 Vice Mayor Sutorius would not oppose the motion because it was in contingency dollars where there seemed to be an overage. He was sure i would not be spent if it was not - absolutely necessary, AMENDMENT: Council Member Patitucci, seconded by Woolley, moved that the contingency be decreased to 15 percent. AMENDMENT INCORPORATED INTO MAIN MOTION BY MAKER AND SECOND Council Member Patitucci opposed the motion because he wanted to be consistent regarding the installation of road bumps. He had always been opposed to mid -year budget changes especially those with such a major future impact. He encouraged every neighborhood with a through traffic problem to watch the experiment closely -and be prepared to accelerate the process of bringing forward their requests. He hoped future considerations would be budgeted along with the Capital Improvement Program and not be taken on an ad -hoc basis. He believed it was inappropriate and allowed for a budget to get out of control. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Patitucci voting "no."* 9. REVISIONS TO RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SERVICES PROGRAMS (1410-01) MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Sutorius, to adopt the staff recommendation approving the modifica- tions to the Residential Energy Services Program as outlined in the staff report (CPiR:476:7) . Council Member Levy said the loan program was described as a fee -supported service and he queried where t e fee came in. Residential Program Coordinator, Energy Services, Debra Katz said staff was planning to charge a fee for each loan in order to compensate for the direct costs. Council Member Levy said even though the interest rate was being set equivalent to the City's rate of interest, the fee would cover any out--of-pocket costs. MOTION PASSED unanimously. . ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned to a Closed Session re litigation at 9*40 p4m. FINAL ADJOURNMENT AT 10:41 p.m. ATTE . T s APPROVED: . - 1 f / 4e Clerk 58-369 10/19/8`7",